Communicated on 5 September 2014

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 48219/11 Beyhan GÃœNYELÄ° against Turkey lodged on 2 May 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Beyhan Günyeli , is a Turkish national, who was born in 1972 and lives in Adana. She is represented before the Court by Mr Günay Kaya, a lawyer practising in Adana.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant is the manager and a member of the Human Rights Association in Adana.

On 4 February 2010 the applicant along with approximately two thousands persons gathered in Adana and attended the reading out of a press statement to draw attention to the problems of employees of the General Directorate of State Monopolies (“TEKEL”).

On 16 March 2010 the Adana Governorship imposed on the applicant an administrative fine of 143 Turkish liras (approximately 73 Euros), holding that Article 32 of Law no. 5326 had been infringed by intentionally disobeying the orders issued by authorised bodies with the aim of protecting public order and safety.

The applicant filed an objection against that decision.

On 1 March 2011 the Adana Magistrates ’ Court dismissed the applicant ’ s objection, finding that the applicant, with other persons, had obstructed the flow of traffic.

The decision of the Adana Magistrates ’ Court was final and not subject to appeal.

On 30 November 2010 the applicant paid the requested amount to the relevant tax department.

B. Relevant domestic law

The relevant section of the Misdemeanors Act (Law no. 5326) reads:

Section 32

“ Persons acting contrary to the orders given by the competent authorities (...) for the protection of the public safety, public order and public health shall have an administrative fine of 100 Turkish liras imposed on them.”

COMPLAINTS

Invoking Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, the applicant complains that she was sentenced to an administrative fine on the ground of her attendance at the meeting, which constituted a breach of her right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly .

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s freedom of peaceful assembly within the meaning of Article 11 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in compliance with Article 11 § 2 of the Convention?